[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 177 (Wednesday, December 19, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H10464-H10465]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     MAKING PERMANENT THE AUTHORITY TO REDACT FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE 
         STATEMENTS OF JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 2336) to make 
permanent the authority to redact financial disclosure statements of 
judicial employees and judicial officers.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Senate amendments:

       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF SUNSET PROVISION.

       Section 105(b)(3)(E) of the Ethics in Government Act of 
     1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended by striking ``2001'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``2005''.
       Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to extend for 4 
     years, through December 31, 2005, the authority to redact 
     financial disclosure statements of judicial employees and 
     judicial officers.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Berman) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).

[[Page H10465]]

                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2336, the bill 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I have a lengthier statement which I will put in the 
Record, but in the interest of time let me explain the bill and the 
Senate amendment. Section 7 of the Identity Theft and Assumption 
Deterrence Act of 1998 allows the Judicial Conference to redact 
portions of financial disclosure statements for judges and other 
judicial officers and employees where the Judicial Conference makes a 
determination that public disclosure will jeopardize the safety of the 
judge, the judge's family, or the judicial officer or the judicial 
officer's family. This provision sunsets on December 31, 2001, in the 
absence of further legislative action. The House passed this 
legislation with a permanent extension of the redaction authority. The 
other body amended the House bill for a 4-year sunset. So with the 4-
year sunset, the redaction authority would once again expire on 
December 31, 2005. I believe that it is a legitimate compromise. It 
allows the Congress in 4 years to review whether these redactions have 
been done in a manner that preserves the thrust of public disclosure 
without jeopardizing the lives and safety of judges and their families; 
and thus I would urge concurrence in the Senate amendment.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to join the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary in supporting House passage of H.R. 2336, as 
amended by the Senate. This bill allows a Federal judge to request 
redaction of her financial disclosure forms, but only if redaction is 
necessary to protect the judge against an identified security threat. 
Such authority exists under current law, but sunsets on December 31.
  The September 11 tragedy and events thereafter heighten the security 
concerns that make this legislation necessary. On October 16, the House 
passed a slightly different version of H.R. 2336 under suspension of 
the rules. The House-passed version permanently extended the ability of 
judges to request redaction of their financial disclosure reports. The 
Senate version on which we vote today extends the redaction authority 
for only 4 years. While I continue to believe permanent extension would 
be preferable, the looming December 31 sunset of the redaction 
authority makes it imperative that we move quickly to enact the Senate 
amendment.
  This redaction authority is appropriately limited, and, thus, does 
not raise concerns about undo restrictions on public access to 
financial disclosure reports. A judge's report may only be redacted if 
the Judicial Conference and the U.S. Marshals Service find that 
revealing personal and sensitive information could endanger that judge. 
Furthermore, the report can only be redacted to the extent necessary to 
protect a judge and only for as long as a danger exists.
  It does not appear that the redaction authority has been abused to 
date. Of 2,350 judges filing reports in calendar year 2000, only 6 
percent had their reports redacted, wholly or partially. Typically the 
information redacted is limited to such things as a spouse's place of 
work, the location of a judge's second home, or the school at which a 
judge teaches law. It is obvious how a person with ill will could 
misuse this information to harm a judge or her family.
  The law requires that the Judicial Conference, in concert with the 
Department of Justice, file an annual report detailing the number and 
circumstances of redactions. This statutory reporting requirement 
enables Congress to monitor for any abuse of the redaction authority.
  I think enactment of H.R. 2336 is necessary to protect the security 
of our Nation's judges, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the House suspend the 
rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill, H.R. 2336.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8, rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________